"A senior OpenBSD developer has complained on a mailing list that upstream vendors of free and open source software are adding in changes without any thought of whether downstream users could adapt to the change. Marc Espie said this would hurt smaller players by not allowing them to keep up with the changes. Basically what is happening is that numerous changes are being made to Linux and smaller projects like OpenBSD cannot keep up with the changes. And, according to Espie, not all these changes are strictly necessary."

No boycott of BSD has been mentioned. Choosing to use programs that happen not to be BSD is not boycotting. The article only goes as far as to mention "laziness".

I'm not talking about the article, I'm talking about how some individuals specifically chose not to run Free/OpenBSD because of the license. My comment was directly in response of one 'OSNewser' stating exactly this.

Did you stop and think for a minute that the fact that "GPL people" do use Firefox, Apache and Xorg is because it is a matter of pragmatism and not principle?

Well yes, obviously. But you've completely missed my point. I was saying that the very people who whine about the licence *BSDs are released under and refuse to use those OSs for those reasons, are the same people who happily use other software with almost identical licences. My point was those people are using double standards. My point was such laziness in principles are more than just pragmatism, but arguably just an excuse to hide the real reason for not wanting to use *BSDs; because it's slightly different.

It's exactly the same as fanboys who bitch about Debian being better or worse than Gentoo. Or KDE and GNOME rights. Or even the vi / emac wars. Except in this instance, licences are a completely irrelevance excuse.

Again, no boycotting is happening on the GPL side.

Already disproved. Read up.

As we established, the fact that "GPL people" often use non-GPL software on their systems liberally because of pragmatic concerns is the very opposite of zealotry.

But if they were pragmatic then they equally wouldn't oppose OpenBSD (or even FreeBSD) because of it's licence.

So the pragmatics are not those I take issue with. It's the vocal few.

The zealotry is on the BSD side. How hard is it to implement sed -i?

You're really not listening to my point; I'm not talking about developers (licence zealotry is more understandable if you're releasing code), I'm talking about users. And only a small subset of users at that (I'm in no way tainting all Linux users as BSD-bigots lol).

But you never do understand any of the points I put across. Whether I explain them badly or you're just closed to any opinions other than your own - maybe a bit of both? I don't know, but I think we should just give up now while this discussion is amicable